By: Maria Sousa Galito, professor at the University of Lisbon / Text with notes and bibliography, at this link: An Essay on Populism
Translation: Agron Shala / Telegrafi.com
ABSTRACT
What is populism? The answer to this question itself could be a political statement. Deciding who is (or is not) a populist leader is a matter of choice and interpretation of reality, which is why it is so difficult to reach consensus at this level. It is not just a matter of historical or regional differences, but also of ideological and cultural perspectives on what is an acceptable or intolerable way to defend ideals.
Since the authors have had difficulty in finding a definition of populism, this article focuses on trying to understand why this happens. The phenomenon will be analyzed especially from the perspective of political science. However, in the end, the text also opens other paths, such as the field of aggravated emotions, trying to identify the relationship between populism and economic crises, sports or the media.
KEYWORDS: Populism, Democracy, Economic crisis, Sports, Media.
FoRewoRd
The text is divided into chapters. The first examines the relationship between democracy and populism. It analyzes whether populism is a democratic phenomenon, a symptom of the lack of democracy, or a completely separate political regime.
The second is about the specific concept of populism. It analyzes the authors for the possibility of reaching a unanimous definition that can be applied anywhere in the world.
The third focuses on who is PEOPLE what populism is talking about.
The fourth tries to explain who populists are. Whether their identification is a matter of opinion.
The fifth studies the characteristics of three approaches to researching populism: as an ideology, as a style of discourse, or as a political strategy.
The sixth tries to understand whether it is a political phenomenon – whether it can be studied in different fields.
The annexes provide additional information for further analysis. The first set of ideas provides insights into populism from different perspectives. The second includes the characteristics of populism in two continents, Europe and Latin America, allowing for comparison between the two.
This project is considered useful in today's world, where populism appears to be a growing public concern and a phenomenon increasingly studied by social scientists.
Read also:
- So, what is populism?
- We must stop worshipping the false god of the strong leader.
- Totalitarianism and the virtue of lying
- Pathocracy
- The psychological dynamics that enable dictators to stay in power
POPULISM AND DEMOCRACY
Can populism be a democratic phenomenon, a symptom of a lack of democracy, or a different political regime? This is the first big question that needs an answer.
Democracy is a Greek word that comes from Demos (the people) and Kratos (power), meaning the power of the people. Citizens are given the right to decide who will govern them or what they want to do (referendums). This means that they are responsible for their own choices. Despite (or because of) this, when they are disappointed, they spontaneously unite or are mobilized by a leader claiming their own truths and, if necessary, all rise up against the system.
"Democracy, which emerged as a type of regime with the historical self-assertion of a demos at a moment of revolution, refers to the collective capacity of a demos to do things in the public sphere, to make things happen. If this is correct, democracy does not refer primarily to the demos' monopoly control over existing constitutional authority." (Ober, 2007:5)
Therefore, without the rule of law and mature citizens, democracy can be unstable and lead to violence, uprisings, or even revolution that can open the door to a less people-friendly regime.
Elections are a blessing, considering the opportunities they can bring. On the other hand, they often fuel excessive competition and conflict in society.
Democracy can be defined by the will of the majority, but it is often dominated by lobes. In other words, common people can be governed by an elite (social or political, in sports or business). Perceptions of injustice can lead to violence. If the crowd feels that resources are being distributed unfairly, does not accept a vertical type of organization and fights for a horizontal one, doubts a system based on equal rights instead of absolute equality (and wants more than it can get), if it is deprived or has high unfulfilled expectations, does not identify with the culture (set of social values) or does not respect its leaders, then there is a decline in trust in the political regime that undermines its legitimacy. Consequently, democracy depends on how it functions and what it offers, which means that it must provide guarantees (or provide a general perception) of security, justice and social cohesion.
Populism has everything to do with revolt against status quoA significant number of their supporters do not want to end democracy, and generally seek a more people-friendly way of governing, which means that populism is a tool for them. The problem is that, in order to get what they want, excesses can be committed. Those who use any means to achieve a result (such as more security, lower taxes, or more jobs) can end up destroying the political regime itself if they elect (or in some way empower) a leader who implements, for example, dictatorship.
Populism is not a paradox of democracy. It is inseparable from this type of political regime. It does not have an “ambiguous relationship with Democracy”, but with the rule of law, which is not the same thing. It is an extreme version of people power. It is about the crowd or its leaders who no longer agree with the current circumstances and are willing to go beyond social norms or legal boundaries to change the situation. This is why populism is extremist.
Populism is anti-system and opportunistic if its leaders – without having the best interests of the population in mind – after coming to power, end up implementing a political regime that is not democratic. The rhetoric is, dramatically, against status quo-s, but the crowd usually demands some adjustments, not a change of political regime, although this may be implied from the beginning.
“Term limits can exacerbate, rather than reduce, the populist tendency of politics.” However, populism does not have to be a “specter haunting democracy.” It can be controlled and prevented. But checks and balances need to work both ways. It is not just about keeping riots at bay, but primarily about good governance. People tend to respect institutions and elected leaders who promote the well-being of society. Nothing seems to please everyone, but a healthy system can survive more easily than one that is fundamentally rotten. However, the interpretation of reality also influences what is considered acceptable or not – according to history, cultural patterns, or political ideologies. (See Annex 1.)
WHAT IS POPULISM?
If populism is an extreme version of democracy, or something that can arise in an unbalanced society where the rule of law has been undermined, or people no longer feel represented by their institutions, then the next question is about its specific concept. Because, without knowing exactly what it is, it is difficult to identify and measure.
Authors have struggled to define populism. They say it is a “cat-and-dog problem” that has a “myopic focus on specific cases.” Others say that, even “if a clear definition is provided, conceptual problems arise.” What seems to be the problem? Apparently, the definition “varies according to country, context, and historical period.” But it is more than that. If populism is a political phenomenon, then it is difficult to answer this question neutrally, because choosing who is and who is not a populist is, in itself, a political statement (Sousa Galito, 2017:23). (See Annex 2.)
Caution is required. Sociologists should not rush to conclusions about the topic and should be aware of the implicit interests that may cloud their judgment, based on personal political preferences or ideology. This is important, because it can have a strong influence on the final result.
Discourses, features, and components can be deceptive. It is perhaps more important to identify patterns than capitalization, or what is just noise, to see whether ideas hold up over an “extended period of time” and whether movements really mean what they say. (See Table 1.)
Table 1: What is not populism?
|
When the case shows only some of the (necessary and jointly sufficient) components of populism (e.g., when a party presents itself simply as a radical outsider). |
|
Not a consistent constituent feature of the political party or movement. |
|
Discourse that is not expressed in a consistent manner by actors over an extended period of time. |
So, the first two conclusions are as follows: Populism is an extremist version of what can happen in democracy (especially when justice does not work or the perception of it), as well as anti-system and opportunistic. It is a phenomenon that should be a stable feature, a strong model of a political party or leader.
What else? “I define populism as a form of political mobilization and governance where a leader personal assistant, strong, to create and then maintain mass support, calls on the 'people' conceived as a category non-elite and for an opposing political purpose, and addresses 'the people' through concrete actions and forms of speech that culturally divide the local popular class.” (Ostiguy, 2001:16) Is this true? Is populism a form of antagonism between PEOPLE and elite driven by a charismatic leader?
WHO IS IT? PEOPLE
The ancient Romans spoke of plebeians. The little people of medieval cities, the population of the French Revolution, peasants in agricultural societies, or blue-uniformed workers in industrial spheres are other traditional definitions of PEOPLE. But in modern democracies, especially where the rule of law exists, citizens are supposed to have the same civil rights and responsibilities. This is not the same as feudalism, which had a hierarchy between nobles, clergy, and commoners. Today, many countries have a Constitution that guarantees equality before the law, which means that everyone is peopleThe population that holds power and the institutions are supposed to protect the interest in the best interest. everyone's.
However, some are richer or more privileged than others. If the population obeys the law and respects its institutions, a kind of balance can be maintained. If not, problems become issues and from this populism arises, because it identifies victims and oppressors. The first group consists of the poor, the good people, the excluded, the innocent, the pure and sincere people like ne. To others It is the elite, the wealthy, and those involved in the corrupt system who are clearly guilty and evil, politically correct but false, and we want nothing to do with them. ata(See Table 2.) This is antagonistic, anti-establishment, and anti-elitist rhetoric.
Populism is a rebellion of the excluded. But, not only that. It is an extremist movement of people who feel to leave out, but who are waiting to be part of the system. That is why they are willing to do anything to get what they want. If they live in a democracy and are part of demos, then they want they are crating. If others have more, everyone should have more if resources are better distributed. Since normal ways are no longer achieving this goal, new assemblies are created. Large numbers of citizens protest in the streets. Some resort to violence. Populism seeks power by any means in a society that is not equal or fair.
Table 2: Populism – antagonistic political discourse
|
PEOPLE |
Elite |
||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
Ne |
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Innocent |
Guilty |
||||
|
Politically correct, but false |
||||
|
Victim |
suppressor |
Populism blames “intermediary institutions,” especially when they are considered corrupt or when there is a general perception of them as such. Does this mean that democracy tends to be a horizontal society? A pure or theoretical system, perhaps. But vertical forms of political organization will not necessarily be threatened by populism if the culture is based on merit or wisdom, learning or experience, and is willing to give more to those who work harder or have higher skills than others. It all depends on the set of values of the PEOPLE. It is a matter of choice and preference to live in an egalitarian (cooperative) or competitive society. One thing is certain, the social, economic, and even religious outcomes are different.
Populists represent victims of the system and usually provide a discursive elaboration of what it means and wants PEOPLE. They do this because the political party must embody the demands of the larger group. To feel stronger, the leader exaggerates the feeling of being all numerically important or even homogeneous, but this only works in nations or units. If not, the crowd will break up sooner or later.
Populism and nationalism are two different things. “Banical populism” is about the mythology of PEOPLE . Nations can become stronger when a commander-in-chief pulls them in a certain direction, even in crisis situations, when the state (institutions) and the nation (a population with a unique set of values) are of equivalent strength. But when countries have different nations, or nations are divided along political boundaries, or especially within confederations or federations or regional blocs, nationalism is considered a threat to the higher level (supranational institutions) and is therefore sometimes attacked or limited by all means.
Populism is also different from fascism. The latter is a totalitarian attempt to organize the state that does not allow PEOPLE much breathing space. The first praises the sovereignty of the population, offers all the freedom they want, at least at first. In fact, populism can empower an opportunistic leader or a political party that can implement various types of political regimes, including fascism; but, later, after betraying the trust of its followers, because the message used to gather support was perhaps based on freedom.
WHO ARE THE POPULISTS?
Identifying populists is a matter of opinion. It depends on the political interests behind the claim, on both sides, because some may think that extremes are acceptable when defending one thing, but intolerable when pushing for something else.
Populists claim to directly represent the interests of PEOPLE and be one of them. They exploit the tide of polarization (of a divided society) or discrimination (rivalry between groups that cannot stand each other or are unable to negotiate a harmonious way of living together). When there is a crisis and general dissatisfaction with it, they offer solutions, but often radical or abstract and idealistic enough to convince the crowd that a better future is possible under their rule. (See Table 3.)
Table 3: What populists offer and who they rage against
|
populists |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
cRISIS |
|
Leaders must be popularin a democracy, if they want to be elected, but they will only become populists if they cross the line. Therefore, to be popular it means being protective and transparent (informative and not corrupt); keeping promises or offering realistic and moderate responses to problems based on concrete measures. Their public policies have predictable results and can be implemented without questioning the rule of law and democratic order. These leaders will not punish public opinion for constructive criticism, because they know that the system must survive and they must be part of the solution, not the problem. (See Table 4.)
Populists are unpredictable or capable of anything. They can be idealistic, paternalistic, or extremist when mobilizing the crowd. They offer an abstract blueprint for what the future might be and promise what they definitely cannot or will not deliver. They are unpredictable (or unstable) and can punish criticism, be vindictive, and destructive. They are considered brave by their supporters, but are ultimately dangerous to the system, to their enemies; some of them turn on their allies after the race is over, or become cult figures (and therefore, unreachable).
Table 4: Differences between popular and populist
|
Popular |
populist |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Concrete measures |
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Defender |
paternalist |
||||
|
Idealist |
|||||
|
Constructive criticism |
Destructive criticism |
||||
|
Safe |
Dangerous |
||||
|
Lead informed and mature citizens |
Lead the crowd |
Populists need people, more than the other way around. Since mobilizing crowds is not easy, they need to be good orators or, at least, entertaining. The spotlight is on them, so they can be exciting, captivating, hypnotizing, intimidating, or mysterious (not all crowds have the same needs and desires). They can be extraordinary orators, but not all of them have experience in the political sphere, as sometimes they are well-known lawyers and activists, even actors and TV hosts, or some other kind of charismatic leader.
Populists will not achieve their goal with words alone, but they certainly need to please their audience. They may be opportunists from the start, but not all are pragmatic or cynical. Some truly believe in what they are advocating and doing. If they are idealists, after the elections or once they take power, they will be forced to face reality (and be shaped by the harsh truth) or be replaced by someone else.
IS POPULISM IDEOLOGY, DISCOURSE STYLE OR POLITICAL STRATEGY?
There is little consensus about what populism is, but it is usually studied from one of these perspectives (or all of them together): as an ideology, a discursive style, or a political strategy. (See Table 5.)
Table 5: Characteristics of three approaches to populism research
|
Main subject |
access |
Definition of populism |
Unit of analysis |
Important methods |
|
Thinking |
Political ideology |
Ideas about the nature of politics and society |
Left Party leaders |
Qualitative or automatic analysis of texts (mainly party literature) |
|
Speaking |
Political discursive style |
Allegations about politics Discourse characteristics |
Text speech Public discourse on politics |
Interpretive textual analysis |
|
action |
Political strategy |
A form of mobilization and organization |
Parties (with a focus on structures), social movements, leaders |
Comparative historical analysis Case studies |
Taking this perspective into account, empirical studies focus their analysis on parties and party leaders in qualitative or automated texts.
As an ideology, populism has a monolithic concept of PEOPLE, perhaps synonymous with ordinary men and women, people without power, of exploited, to POOR. It claims to protect the “general will” or something more complex like the nation (the fundamental values established in a given territory). There is an antagonistic line of thought that implies the exclusion of the threatening or abusive group – others, elite. “Us against them” is the survival mode of the virtuous who are protected by the corrupt. (See Table 6.)
Table 6: Populism as a political ideology
|
Politics as an expression of the general will (the people as sovereign) |
|
Monolithic concept for the people |
|
The people / the nation / ordinary men and women / the powerless / the poor / the exploited / … |
|
Two homogeneous groups (people/elite, majority/minority, …) |
|
Antagonism (“us” versus “them”). Exclusion of “others” |
|
The people betrayed by those in power |
|
Praising the “people” (pure, virtuous) and denigrating the “elite” (corrupt) |
It is not so much a set of ideas. As a line of thought it is largely unworkable and too abstract. As an ideology it is considered to offer no comprehensive view, due to its vagueness, but instrumental in its core values, which means that more people can be convinced that it is what they are looking for.
Ultimately, “(…) populism is neither left nor right, neither progressive nor conservative. Populism can be combined with many ‘outdated ideologies’ (…)” (Bakker, Rooduijn and Schumacher, 2015: 4). If this is true, then populism is not so much an ideology as it is an umbrella, an instrumental way to get what you want. PEOPLE (or more precisely, its leaders). This is the main reason why some authors have considered it the weakest interpretation of the phenomenon.
Aslanidis (2015) suggests that populism is better described as a discourse than an ideology and that the analysis of the framework can encourage comparative work. The author argues that its chameleon nature adapts to circumstances and attaches itself to established systems of ideas (such as socialism or liberalism), but never truly becomes one of them due to its lack of coherence. In other words, populism is a type of message that comes across as strong and powerful. A message that is anti-establishment. It does not respect norms and institutions that do not represent the “general will” (or its perception), based on speeches, party manifestos and press statements.
Table 7: Populism as a political strategy
|
The specific way of competing for political power and exercising it |
|
Support from the masses Masses as a large number of largely unorganized followers Power based on direct, unmediated, non-institutionalized support Populist – charismatic type (Rooted in personal qualities. Includes asymmetry between leaders and followers, but also direct approach and great passion) Populist - personalist leader The populist is an outsider (new challenger) who embodies the demands of "the people" |
Populism is “the language of politics when there can be no politics as usual” and individuals seem more prone to it than political parties (especially when they are already consolidated or part of the system, unlike new parties that can be unpredictable). Leaders are perhaps more unstable, due to their manipulative nature (Whoever is not with me is a traitor.) or as a target, as they are easily criticized by their enemies or more vulnerable to criticism from their counterparts.
If "the other side of depoliticization of politics, on the part of populism, is hyper-politicization of social relations", can populism be a political strategy? If so, there are three variants based on forms of mobilization, political elections or political organization.
Populism can be considered an extreme way to get elected. Analysis of the election of FRANCHISE raises questions such as artificial dichotomy and bias. Not all supporters of populist leaders vote for the same party or defend the same political ideology, which means it is important to “separate populism from the features that may regularly occur alongside it, but are not part of it.”
Populism as a political strategy, rather than an ideology, is taken as a form of mobilization. The dangers of mob behavior become an issue, not so much for populists, but for legal institutions. At this level, some differences can be identified between left and right groups. (See Table 8.) In fact, according to Kries (2015), social movements are challengers that mobilize in non-electoral channels; interest groups are mainstream actors that mobilize in non-electoral channels; movement parties (political activists emerging from social movements) are challengers that mobilize in electoral channels; and, political parties are mainstream actors that mobilize in electoral channels.
Table 8: Forms of political mobilization
|
Mobilization channels |
||
|
non-election |
election |
|
|
defiant |
Social movement |
Movement party |
|
Main stream |
Interest group |
Political party |
POPULISM IS A POLITICAL PHENOMENON
As long as there are people, they can go too far. If populism is an extremist expression of democracy, it can also be found in periods of economic crisis, social instability or religious extremism. But, in general, it does not cease to be a political phenomenon, if we consider that politicians (not only professional ones) polisare citizens of the city. According to this idea, he always has some kind of political influence or consequence. Not everyone may agree with this idea, but it is a possible idea. (See Annex 1.)
An economic crisis can open the door to populism, but it is usually not enough. The general perception that economic hardship is coming can also be a key issue, because people may feel compelled to fight against the government to prevent austerity measures that limit job opportunities or lead to high unemployment and high taxes. Perhaps the field is already undermined by a lack of trust in “the blurring of political institutions.” Or, by an entrenched lack of representation. Or, by high income inequality or social heterogeneity that allows “the wealthy elite (or a subset thereof) to have disproportionate influence in politics.” Then the poor or the unfortunate become more angry against the rich and privileged, and the snowball starts rolling.
Populism is often a way to openly or covertly fight for natural resources that represent important sources of income – such as oil and natural gas, drinking water, or forests (timber).
Journalists should inform people about these things, but they provide something else entirely. Television and radio are forms of mass communication and, for this reason, are also vulnerable to populism, especially when viewership is the driving force of a billion-dollar business. The Internet is another dimension, virtual and more dangerous because it is less controlled, circulating all kinds of propaganda that could, one day, ignite real protests or extreme behavior in the streets.
Populism can also be found in sports, especially football (with local, national or global influence). In some countries it is more visible than in others. And it has been used as a tool in the present as well as in the past.
Populism is a group phenomenon and people are social creatures. As an extremist form of democracy, it is not uncommon to experience it in stadiums, where leaders are in close proximity to people with strong emotions. Fueled by rivalry between opponents, this type of environment can spread hooliganism and violence.
Sports are associated with extreme emotional experiences that can fuel rivalry and violence from hooligans and club leaders. This can be interpreted by Psychology or Sociology.
Based on electoral affinity, there is a connection between the belief system and the psychological disposition of the voter. In fact, people vote for people or messages that seem to match their personality, which implies projection. Individuals who feel afraid tend to be more vigilant, and angry people are more likely to blame others. Populism is more associated with anger and resentment and often sells illusion.
Science usually focuses on logic and not on emotions. Political sociology tends to marginalize them. The field of Political Sociology of Emotions allows political phenomena to be analyzed from an emotional perspective, which seems more efficient than reducing situations from a monistic point of view, only to emotions and feelings, as does Political Emotional Sociology.
Populism creates emotions, and its leaders have historically been able to instigate political change and religious fervor. But there is also a great degree of rationality in the motivations of leaders and followers in populist politics.
cONcluSiON
Populism can be a political phenomenon and an extreme version of people power in action – in full force. It’s all about anger and frustration against a system that excludes groups that claim to belong, or have expectations of getting more than they currently get. It can be controlled, but term limits can actually exacerbate populist tendencies if the government or public institutions cannot provide things like security, peace, welfare, or social cohesion.
Populism is extremist, anti-system and opportunistic. It is verified over a prolonged period of time, it is not a simple emotional speech or a large street demonstration – it is a social movement.
Populism can hardly be considered an ideology (at best it is narrow-minded). It is usually a vague line of thought and a chameleon-like way of adapting to frustrated people who feel the need to do something out of the ordinary; who are looking for a way out, and are able to interpret it as a solution to their problems.
As a discursive style, it can be the language of politics when there can be no politics as usual – when status quo-is considered intolerable to a crowd that wants to express itself and is willing to pay attention to leaders who know how to read their minds and tell them what they want to hear.
As a political strategy, it is a form of political organization, mobilization, or political choice. At this level, all means can be used to achieve a goal, especially if its actors have no scruples.
Populists can be charismatic leaders, capable of mobilizing the masses in a sustainable manner. In a modern democracy, especially under the rule of law, all citizens (of a given area) can be considered members of the PEOPLE and, therefore, at least in theory, everyone is vulnerable to propaganda of this kind.
However, PEOPLE It is usually not homogeneous. Different groups may not necessarily identify with the same themes or perspectives. Some will be more sensitive to a set of leftist values, others to right-wing rhetoric.
Some may be susceptible to religious fundamentalism, sports hooliganism, media excesses, or other forms of dangerous behavior that lead to democratic disorder. People with strong emotional drives may one day find themselves – if they are not careful – in the hands of extremists who could lead them (and everyone else) into an uncertain future. /Telegraph/
Source of information @Telegrafi: Read more at:the world today www.botasot.al
